Crypto
No Capital Gains On Bitcoin – A Good Idea?
POLAND – 2024/11/06: In this photo illustration, Donald Trump’s X account is displayed on a … [+]
The question of whether Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies should be subject to capital gains taxation has been bandied about for years, but has found renewed interest since former President Trump won a second term. The typical argument for capital gains treatment being inappropriate for cryptocurrencies is an assumption, in contravention of current tax policy, that they are currencies—and that currencies are not subject to capital gains tax.
This is partly true, but not for the reasons proponents think, as profits from currency exchanges are by default taxed as ordinary income under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 988. This would mean any profit made from currency exchanges, including cryptocurrencies if they gain currency treatment, would be subject to taxation at ordinary income tax rates. Of course, as the top capital gain rate is 20% while the top income tax bracket is 37%, holders of cryptocurrencies in the upper income brackets would be none too pleased with this outcome.
That said, if a foreign currency is held as an investment and an election is made by a taxpayer under IRC Section 988(a)(1)(B) prior to any transaction occurring, it is possible for currency exchanges to receive capital treatment.
Advocates for excluding cryptocurrencies from the capital gains regime in favor of treating them as more traditional currencies, however, seem to be misunderstanding the effect and assuming that would mean gains on cryptocurrencies would not be taxed. In fact, by default, they’d be taxed at the potentially higher ordinary income rates.
Eliminating Tax on Bitcoin
It is clear what advocates for cryptocurrency tax reform are really hoping for is tax exemption.
However, there is no policy rationale for eliminating taxes on Bitcoin or any other cryptocurrency. At best, cryptocurrencies function as currencies—but ones with an incredibly inefficient and resource-intensive minting process and for which the very use creates externalities.
Unlike traditional fiat currencies, whose creation and transaction costs are relatively minimal, cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin require significant computing power, electricity, and the resulting environmental impact to maintain. Even cryptocurrencies that rely on more efficient systems than Bitcoin’s proof-of-work are still more resource-intensive than minting a nickel. This inefficiency undermines the argument that cryptocurrencies should enjoy the incentivizing power of complete exemption from taxation.
Moreover, cryptocurrencies lack the stability and governmental backing of traditional currencies, which makes them speculative assets rather than conventional mediums of exchange—regardless of what you call them.
Given that cryptocurrencies can and do function in the economy in a manner similar to other investment assets—like stocks or real estate—exempting them from taxation would create an inequitable tax environment. Other investment vehicles that generate a profit are subject to tax, and granting an exception for cryptocurrencies would simply endorse them as a special class of untaxed speculative wealth—a precedent with no underlying policy goal beyond boosting the wealth of those that hold it.
Economic and Social Realities of Tax-Exempt Crypto
There’s no precedent for the special treatment proposed for cryptocurrency gains, as no other asset class is exempted from tax solely for speculation. Municipal bonds are the closest comparison, but they differ in purpose and impact.
Municipal bonds are traditionally tax-advantaged to encourage investment in local and state infrastructure and keep the cost of municipal borrowing as low as possible. Tax exemptions on the interest from these bonds incentivize investors to support public projects which benefit society as a whole. Cryptocurrency holdings provide no such benefits.
A tax exemption for cryptocurrencies would almost certainly disproportionately benefit high-income individuals, further exacerbating wealth inequality. Much of cryptocurrency wealth is highly concentrated among a small group—with large holdings by early adopted and institutional investors. Placing cryptocurrencies on par with municipal bonds in terms of tax treatment would be a huge tax break grant to well-capitalized groups, rather than toward investments in social projects—depending economic divides.
There is also the tax revenue loss to contend with—as capital gains from cryptocurrencies are a growing revenue source for governments, particularly as the market for these assets expands. This revenue loss would likely need to be offset by shifting the tax burden onto wage earners and businesses or by reducing public services and infrastructure investments. I
Cryptocurrency Tax Policy Realities
The reality is that most of the proponents of eliminating capital gains tax treatment on cryptocurrencies—beginning with former President Trump and extending to others in his political sphere—likely do not fully understand the implications of their proposals. Statements from these advocates reveal a fundamental misunderstanding of the current tax system as they seem to believe that by treating assets like Bitcoin as currency, their gains would be rendered tax-free. In reality, however, shifting cryptocurrencies to “currency” treatment would, by default, subject profits to higher tax rates.
This misconception stems from an incomplete, or wholly lacking, grasp of tax law fundamentals. By framing cryptocurrencies as currency without understanding the tax implications, they risk promoting a policy that would, in practice, often result in taxing these assets more heavily—rather than less. This is emblematic of their broader policy understanding and corresponding vision.
In conclusion, while cryptocurrency itself is undoubtedly volatile, tax policy should be anything but. Any fundamental alteration to cryptocurrency tax treatment should be based on a thorough analysis and a compelling rationale, rather than mere hunch or political impulses.
Crypto
Cedar Falls delays public hearing on crypto mining operation, power plant
CEDAR FALLS, Iowa (KCRG) – Cedar Falls city officials postponed a public hearing on zoning and code changes needed for a proposed power plant and cryptocurrency mining operation.
The hearing was pushed back to April 22 amid concerns from residents about environmental impacts and utility costs.
Cedar Falls Utility and Simple Mining, the company behind the cryptocurrency operation, say their projects will not negatively impact the public or the environment. Residents at Tuesday night’s meeting showed skepticism about those claims.
People are concerned about noise levels and water and electricity usage. Simple Mining says its crypto mining will use a closed loop water cooling system, which will allow the operation to use very little water. The company also says it can be shut down quickly when energy rates are higher.
Matt Hein, Simple Mining Director of Energy Infrastructure, said the company’s energy usage is a benefit to Cedar Falls.
“Our large consumption of electricity is an economic benefit to the city of Cedar Falls,” Hein said. “We help pay for schools, we help pay for roads.”
People worry high energy usage will push their utility bills up.
Cedar Falls Utility says the power plant was planned for years before the crypto operation became part of the picture.
Copyright 2026 KCRG. All rights reserved.
Crypto
US 10-Year Treasury Yield Hits 8-Month High Above 4.4%, Pulls Back on Middle East Ceasefire Reports
Bond Market Selloff Pushes 10-Year Yield
The move reflected a sharp repricing of inflation and fiscal risk. Bond prices fell as investors demanded higher returns on longer-dated government debt, pushing the 10-year yield to close at approximately 4.39% on Tuesday, according to data tracked by Ycharts and the St. Louis Fed’s FRED database.
Three overlapping pressures drove the climb. The ongoing U.S.-Iran conflict — including airstrikes and troop deployments, raised fears of oil supply disruptions near the Strait of Hormuz. Crude prices spiked, embedding higher energy costs into inflation expectations and pulling bond prices lower, particularly at the long end of the curve.
Fiscal concerns compounded the move. Increased military spending added to already elevated deficit projections, deepening term-premium pressure on Treasuries. Weak recent bond auctions further signaled reduced demand from investors, questioning long-term fiscal sustainability.
The Federal Reserve provided no offset. At its March 18 meeting, the Fed held the federal funds rate steady at 3.50%–3.75% in an 11-1 vote, citing sticky inflation, solid economic activity, and uncertainty tied to the Iran conflict. The Fed’s dot plot still projected one rate cut in 2026, but futures markets largely priced out meaningful easing this year — with some traders pushing rate-cut expectations into 2027.
That hawkish stance steepened the yield curve. Short-term rates stayed anchored while long-end yields rose on persistent inflation bets — a classic “higher for longer” repricing that forced an unwind of leveraged bond positions.
Jurrien Timmer, Director of Global Macro at Fidelity Investments, flagged the technical significance of the move. “While the 10-year yield broke out of a short-term range, the weekly chart still shows bonds holding within a long triangle in place since 2022,” Timmer wrote Wednesday. “If it breaks, it will be a problem not only for bonds but equities and other assets as well.” He added that yields are rising globally: “This is a global reset.”
Keith McCullough, CEO of Hedgeye Risk Management, pointed to the trend’s staying power. “10-Year Yield Holds Uptrend as Inflation Nowcast Accelerates during Quad3,” McCullough posted Wednesday. “The bond market isn’t buying the narrative. 10Y still making higher highs and lows. Range: 4.20–4.43%.”
Wednesday’s partial reversal showed how sensitive yields remain to geopolitical headlines. As ceasefire reports circulated, the 10-year traded near 4.32%–4.33%, giving back a portion of the prior day’s advance.
Timmer’s earlier note captured the line markets are watching: “Nothing good happens above 4.5% when the risk-free rate is competitive with risky assets.” That level sits roughly 17 basis points above Tuesday’s close.
Whether yields resume their climb depends on two variables: sustained inflation data and any re-escalation in the Middle East. Markets are positioned for both. For now, the 10-year yield remains a live stress indicator, not just for bonds, but for equities, credit, and rate-sensitive sectors across the U.S. economy.
FAQ 🔎
- Why did the 10-year Treasury yield rise above 4.4% in March 2026? The yield climbed due to overlapping pressures from U.S.-Iran conflict oil fears, elevated federal deficit spending, and a Federal Reserve holding rates steady with few cuts expected in 2026.
- What does a higher 10-year Treasury yield mean for the U.S. economy? Rising long-term yields increase borrowing costs for mortgages, corporate debt, and government financing, putting pressure on equities and rate-sensitive sectors.
- When did the 10-year yield last trade this high? The March 24, 2026 close near 4.39% marked the highest level in approximately eight months, dating back to around July 2025.
- Will U.S. Treasury yields continue rising in 2026? Analysts say the path depends on incoming inflation data and whether the Middle East conflict escalates further or moves toward a sustained ceasefire.
Crypto
Robinhood Board of Directors Authorizes New $1.5 Billion Share Repurchase Program
The Robinhood Markets, Inc. (HOOD) Board of Directors authorizes a new $1.5 billion share repurchase program as of March 2026. This move follows previous buyback authorizations from May 2024 and April 2025, adding over $1.1 billion in incremental capacity to the firm’s existing strategy.
The global brokerage firm plans to execute this $1.5 billion authorization over approximately the next three years depending on market conditions. This decision follows the successful repurchase of over 25 million shares at an average price of $45 per share under previous board approvals.
“This authorization reflects the confidence of our management team and board in our ability to continue delivering innovative products,” stated Shiv Verma, Chief Financial Officer of Robinhood.
🧭 FAQs
• Where is the Robinhood share repurchase program legally authorized? The Board of Directors authorized the program at the corporate headquarters in the United States.
• How much capital will Robinhood return to its global shareholders? The company plans to deploy $1.5 billion for share repurchases over the next three years.
• What is the local impact of this financial announcement? This move signals strong financial health and long-term strategic confidence to investors in all jurisdictions.
• Has Robinhood completed any previous buybacks in this market? The firm already repurchased 25 million shares totaling more than $1.1 billion since May 2024.
-
Detroit, MI1 week agoDrummer Brian Pastoria, longtime Detroit music advocate, dies at 68
-
Science1 week agoHow a Melting Glacier in Antarctica Could Affect Tens of Millions Around the Globe
-
Movie Reviews1 week ago‘Youth’ Twitter review: Ken Karunaas impresses audiences; Suraj Venjaramoodu adds charm; music wins praise | – The Times of India
-
Sports5 days agoIOC addresses execution of 19-year-old Iranian wrestler Saleh Mohammadi
-
Science1 week agoI had to man up and get a mammogram
-
New Mexico4 days agoClovis shooting leaves one dead, four injured
-
Texas6 days agoHow to buy Houston vs. Texas A&M 2026 March Madness tickets
-
Tennessee3 days agoTennessee Police Investigating Alleged Assault Involving ‘Reacher’ Star Alan Ritchson
